Re: Lighting Some Flames: Towards conlang artistry

John:
> > ... which happens to be the largest and most comprehensive reference
> > grammar of a conlang there has ever been.
>
> Well, other conlangs are as well documented: they just inherit more
> stuff from natlangs.  Of an a-priori conlang, definitely.
The stuff inherited from natlangs is still part of the conlang & so
should be documented in a reference grammar. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I don't think there is a reference grammar even of Esperanto to
rival _The complete Lojban language_. (Not of course that that book
was written in any spirit of rivalry or hubris or unjustifiable
pride.)

> > Even if, like Lars, you had not been actively involved with conlanging,
> > you would have squatocratic rights to be here (if rights were needed).
>
> Thank you.  But my point was: there are people interested in conlangs
> who aren't particularly themselves creators of conlangs.
> And I am one of these, all (highly flattering) nitpicks aside.
The 'poetry scene' of today is much scoffed at, on the grounds that
the number of people writing poetry exceeds the number of people reading
it. That is, the total amount of poetry read is less than the total
amount of poetry written, and most people 'in the scene' write more than
they read. One possible criterion for an Art is that there are many
more consumers than producers. Accordingly, your presence on the list
could be considered to provide a shred of legitimacy to conlanging's
claim to be an Art.

--And.

Reply